The trailer for Season Seven is out.  So much for my decision not to watch this season. 

 

I honestly didn't think anything could change my mind this time, but how can I not watch after seeing that?  I've tried to break up with 24 before but am always lured back by its empty promises.  "This time, things will be different, Amy.  I've really changed!"  No, you haven't changed.  Deep down I know the truth.  The sad part is, even though I know it's a trick--that I'll get sucked in by this awesome trailer only to find that Season Four is still the last good season, I'll be there in January.  Sure, I'll tell myself that I'll only watch the first few episodes to see if it's any good, but who am I kidding?  Once I start, I'll feel a responsibility to see the storyline through to the end.  That is how they've won the last two years.  Oh, when will this useless, codependent relationship end?! 

I'm at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing: Values Voter Summit today and tomorrow.  Melinda (my boss) was invited to blog on the conference and was nice enough to bring me with her.  All of the Republican candidates for president will be speaking among other guests (including Jim Wallis), so it should be interesting.  (Unfortunately, all of the Democratic candidates declined to speak.)  You can read our posts on the experience over on the Stand to Reason Blog.

I came across the following item in the gift shop of the Basilica of St. Mary (America's first) in Minneapolis.

I was in complete awe of its pagan blasphemity (if I may coin a word...I'm not sure there's an existing word to describe it...not one I can post, anyway).  Here's a front and back view of the box for your viewing displeasure:

In case you can't tell, the man is digging a hole in his backyard.  He'll bury the...(ahem)...statue, speak his "petition to St. Joseph," and then PRESTO!  And St. Joseph can get you $1,000,000, too.  But wait, there's more!  If you act now, he'll also help you unload that pesky soul you've been trying to sell.

From the Hollywood Reporter regarding Kiefer's DUI charge:

 

Sutherland's plea deal [to serve a 48-day sentence] quickly resolves the matter and avoids shutting down production on "24," on which he also serves as an executive producer.  Had he gone for a continuous jail time, he likely would have served less time, which is often the case in misdemeanor cases.  Instead, he opted for two stints [during Christmas break and after the season is over], which means he will serve the entire sentence.

 

Said Fox and 20th TV, which produces "24" with Imagine TV:  "He told us that even if he had to sacrifice more time in custody in order to protect the show and the jobs of those who work with him, he would do so.  From what occurred today, it is evident he is a man of his word."

 

You know, drunk driving is horribly wrong, and it was colossally stupid of Kiefer to do it (seriously, can you tell me Kiefer Sutherland couldn't get someone to drive him home?); but this is an honorable, very un-Hollywood response he's had to his arrest.  One would expect someone with his power, money, and fame to do whatever he could to protect himself, but here he is, putting the jobs of his coworkers above his own personal comfort, voluntarily taking on more punishment than required to be sure they're not hurt by his actions. 

 

Now that sounds like Jack Bauer.  Kiefer probably can't help but be affected by the character he plays, as we've already seen in this hilarious incident.

 

I'm reminded of a verse I've always been fascinated by:  Romans 5:7 - "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die."  We would prefer a person to be both, of course, but we respond more to goodness than to mere moral perfection (that is, a righteousness of rules without kindness or sacrifice for others).  Kiefer may be an unrighteous sinner (as we all are, for that matter), but I can't help but like him when he goes out of his way to take responsibility for his actions and be good to others.

 

As Christians, we ought to strive to be good and righteous.  This is a difficult task, but if Kiefer is affected by the time he spends with a fictional character, how much more will the living Holy Spirit actively conform us to Christ as we spend time with Him, immersing ourselves in the Bible!

The summer issue of Salvo features an interesting interview with screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi.  In it she explains that "A beautiful film is one that achieves excellence in production and message."  Technical considerations (script, design, acting, etc.) are important, but:

[A] film should also be judged according to its message.  What does the movie want you to believe?  Is what it's telling you the truth or a lie?  If the latter, then it's a bad film, no matter how good the technique may be.

There are many well-done ugly films out there--and many badly-done nice ones.  Why is this?  I came across a quote from Simone Weil that seems to capture the problem (though it doesn't explain it):

Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.

The truth is, for whatever reason, it is very, very difficult to portray goodness as it really is and quite easy to portray evil as we wish it to be.  Christian filmmakers, you need real skill to achieve the former.  Don't give in to laziness!  Strive as artists throughout history have striven to uplift our souls with real beauty and truth.  Our prayers are with you.

I wasn't going to start watching any new television shows this year, but one of them caught my eye:  Journeyman.  I've always been a sucker for time travel plots or shows about people fixing things that have gone wrong (either in this universe (Early Edition) or a parallel one (Sliders)).  You put both of those things together and you have the formula that frequently appears in my list of favorite shows since that king of all shows from my childhood, Voyagers!.  (And yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.)  So I felt that if any show was going to be so complete in its Amyness, it was my duty to at least give it a try.

The plot of Journeyman is simple.  A man (Dan) suddenly finds himself unexpectedly traveling to the past (so far, only within the past 30 or 40 years) for brief periods of time.  He has no control over when this happens or for how long, and at first, the trips seem to be random.  But soon he discovers there's a meaningful pattern to his journeys.  He finds himself following the life of a specific person as he jumps through history.  With a little help from the Internet during his intermittent returns to the present, Dan is able to figure out how he can help/protect/save the one he's following so that person can then go on to fulfill his purpose of helping other people in the present.  When Dan's mission is accomplished, he's on to the next episode where he finds himself tracking a new person in trouble.  ...Okay, maybe that doesn't sound so simple to some of you, but for sci-fi fans, this is a pretty common formula.

So far I've been enjoying the show, but I've found one thing about it to be very odd.  Dan expresses his confusion about what is happening to him and how, but he hasn't yet even once asked the most obvious question to me: who is causing this to happen?  For any thoughtful observer, there's no doubt that a personal being is behind his travels; random forces aren't complex (putting him in just the right time and place over and over in a specific person's life) and meaningful (there's a definite purpose--the person is saved so she can then do a specific act in the future that will save others).  There is intelligence, foreknowledge, goodness, and care involved, and all of these things point to a personal, powerful, compassionate being.  Yet, there's no talk of God or to God, even though it seems that both of these reactions would be most natural in this situation.  There's only a strange, unnatural silence on the whole subject--particularly strange since Dan recognizes the intelligent design involved as he discovers and notes the "reasons why" he was "supposed" to help each person.

So why no talk of who might be behind this?  It may be because we've been conditioned by Darwinian thought to ignore obvious signs of design and purpose.  We want to enjoy their benefits (a meaningful life, or in this case, a meaningful story) without taking them too seriously or following them to their logical conclusion, so we've trained ourselves not to ask the "who" question.

Eventually, though, I think Journeyman will have to have to deal with it.  We may be indoctrinated enough to accept the foolish denial of design and purpose when it comes to evolution, but I don't think anyone will buy the idea for long that--in a play on Dawkins's original quote about biology from The Blind Watchmaker--"Journeyman is the story of random, complicated plot twists that [only] give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

But who knows?  We might be capable of ignoring even this.  After all, we've been cultivating this blind spot since the beginning of time:

[T]hat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  (Romans 1:19-21)

Some excerpts from Ryan T. Anderson's review of Frank Beckwith's new book, Defending Life:  A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice for National Review:

He begins by marshaling medical embryology to show that "from a strictly scientific point of view . . . an individual human life begins at conception." Whereas sperm and egg each contain half of the genetic code (23 chromosomes) and are parts of larger organisms (the parents), the one-celled zygote "is a new, although tiny, individual with a human genetic code with its own genomic sequence (with 46 chromosomes), which is neither her mother's nor her father's. From this point until death no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human being." Beckwith responds to common objections, noting that high rates of natural embryo loss no more disprove the humanity of embryos than high rates of infant mortality do that of infants; that early-embryo twinning does no more to undermine the unity of the embryo prior to twinning than cutting a flatworm in half (forming two flatworms) does to its unity prior to separation; and that while a human embryo doesn’t look like an adult, it "does look exactly like a human ought to look at this stage of her development."

If embryos and fetuses are human beings (which the science compels reasonable people to acknowledge), do they have a right to life? Some, like David Boonin of the University of Colorado, think not. . . Advocates of this view typically point to self-awareness or other immediately exercisable mental capacities as features that make a human being valuable.

Beckwith rejects these arguments because they rest on a faulty understanding of the human person, undermine human equality, and produce morally repugnant conclusions. . . .

"The human being is a particular type of substance -- a rational moral agent -- that remains identical to itself as long as it exists, even if it is not . . . currently able to immediately exercise these activities." We are valuable in virtue of the sort of thing (the substance) we are -- human beings, with basic root capacities for personal acts. Since a substance cannot come in degrees, we are all equally human beings and thus equally valuable.

 

(HT:  Between Two Worlds)

Audio book, that is.  This month's free selection at Christianaudio.com is The Life of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards.  I love biographies, and this one promises to be very interesting: 

Though he was orphaned at age fourteen, repeatedly struck with debilitating illnesses, and unfairly expelled from college, Brainerd allowed nothing to deter him from serving God wholeheartedly. He traveled thousands of miles by horseback across treacherous terrain to preach the gospel to remote Indians. His calling required a rugged man--he even slept outside in the cold without cover--yet he constantly displayed a gentle and meek love for people entirely different from himself. Their benefit ultimately brought about his early death at the age of twenty-nine. Like an invigorating shower, the listener will be rejuvenated by Brainerd's life-giving devotional insights, refreshing clarity of purpose, and heartwarming preaching. This book offers not only a captivating story, but an uplifting buoy for those who are weary, distant, or discouraged.

 

For a preview of the life you'll hear about in this book, you can listen to (or read) John Piper's biographical lecture on Brainerd.  (And if you haven't listened to the rest of Piper's biographies, what the heck are you waiting for?!)